Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
With what do you disagree? All I am asking is that the group abide by its own policy.I see your main point, but I disagree with it.
I don't think this is about barring a group in the sense of telling them they can't meet, have their club rules, pray however they want, or whatever. This is about whether they meet the standard (which, in this instance, is just a matter of meeting the group's OWN standard) for receiving funds and having certain official privileges as an official student group.I missed the part where I questioned "someone else's Christianity." It is educational to see a Christian argue in favor of banning evangelical groups from campus, using the same rhetoric that a non-Christian would. If evangelical students face this much resistance on a Christian forum, one shutters to think of the opposition they face on campus.
Given what follows, that post of yours was deeply misleading. Yes, the article was indeed published. But the fact that the newspaper fired the writer and disavowed the article undermines your implication that this view is widespread on the left.
Editors of the Texas State University Star told readers "we screwed up" this week after publishing an opinion column that called whiteness "an abomination."
Under the headline "Your DNA is an abomination," columnist Rudy Martinez wrote, "I hate you [whites] because you shouldn't exist. You are both the dominant apparatus on the planet and the void in which all other cultures, upon meeting you, die."
The student newspaper immediately faced backlash for publishing the column, and removed it from its website. In an editorial Thursday, the paper's editors said Martinez had been fired.
We need a modicum of responsibility in this debate. The publication was an aberration - something that slipped through the cracks.
You expressed frustration with people who take your religion and twist to fit their own agenda, an agenda that is anathema to your faith. This is the same feeling many Muslims feel when they groups like Al Qaeda perverting Islam. Your statements demonstrate how much you share in common with your Muslim brothers and sisters.
Maybe so, but surely you agree that in the USA at the present time, the overwhelming majority of the "hate / racism" is coming from the right? That is not to excuse the problems on the left, but rather to gain perspective.It was an aberration amongst school articles...but he was fired from the paper, not kicked out of school.....etc.
Nice fan faction. White supremacists have increased their presence on college campuses, so we get a false claim of BLM being the New Black Panther Party, despite that group not having a presence on college campuses... it's like a weird form of whataboutism. Let's ignore the group connected to five murders and try to smear BLM with claims it is the Black Panthers."I hate white people. All of them. Every last iota of a cracker, I hate it. We didn't come out here to play today. There's too much serious business going on in the black community to be out here sliding through South Street with white, dirty, cracker ***** ******* on our arms, and we call ourselves black men. … What the **** is wrong with you black man? You at a doomsday with a white girl on your **** arm. We keep begging white people for freedom! No wonder we not free! Your enemy cannot make you free, fool! You want freedom? You going to have to kill some crackers! You going to have to kill some of their babies!"
— King Samir Shabazz, head of the Black Panthers Philadelphia chapter, in a National Geographic documentary, January 2009
Back in 2014, BLM sponsored a panel discussion on “Policing, Race, and Injustice,” featuring a talk by former New Black Panther Party chairman Malik Shabazz. That's the same Malik Shabazz I quoted above who has openly advocated a race war in America; who has exhorted blacks to avenge police shootings of African Americans by creating “funeral in the police community”; who refers to “the white man” as black people's “common enemy”; who characterizes America's founders as nothing more than a loathsome pack of “Indian killers, slave traders, [and] slave owners”; and who praised Osama bin Laden after 9/11 as a Muslim “brother” and “a bold man” who was bravely “standing up” for his beliefs and “bringing reform to this world.”
You see, Black Lives Matter was established in 2013 in response to the acquittal of George Zimmerman, the “white Hispanic” who was tried for murder and manslaughter for the 2012 killing of Trayvon Martin. According to BLM, Zimmerman's act was but a microcosm of the “virulent anti-Black racism” that “permeates our society” and continues to exacerbate “the deep psychological wounds of slavery, racism and structural oppression.”
Yep.... BLM is a militant group based off, or spun off of the black panthers. The Founder of BLM is Alicia Garza, a young woman who wholeheartedly reveres Assata Shakur
the Marxist revolutionary, former Black Panther, and convicted cop-killer whose 1979 escape to Cuba was facilitated by the Weather Underground Organization and the Black Liberation Army.
Another of BLM's co-founders, Patrisse Cullors, is a self-identified “freedom fighter” who advocates dramatically “reducing the law-enforcement budget” and forcing some police departments to be entirely “disbanded or abolished.” “With a reduction of law-enforcement money,” ... “we can then be putting it back into Black communities”—as in, government-funded programs that provide “black folks” with “jobs,” “housing,” and “healthy food.” In other words, a Marxist paradise filled with dutiful slaves who are entirely dependent upon Washington.
The third and final co-founder of BLM, Opal Tometi, is a “Black feminist writer” and “cultural organizer” who contends that “the racist structures that have long oppressed Black people” perpetuate a “cycle of oppression” that “allows law enforcement to kill Black people at nearly the same rate as Jim Crow lynchings” once occurred in the Old South.
Others whom Garza (The original founder) praises for their “extraordinary” accomplishments include:
Angela Davis (a Marxist and former Black Panther)
BLM maintains that:
(a) our nation's “corrupt democracy” was originally “built on Indigenous genocide and chattel slavery” and “continues to thrive on the brutal exploitation of people of color”
(b) “the ugly American traditions of patriarchy, classism, racism, and militarism” pervade every aspect of our society
(c) “structural oppression” still “prevents so many from realizing their dreams”
(d) blacks in the U.S. are routinely “de-humaniz[ed]” and targeted for “extrajudicial killings … by police and vigilantes” in our “white supremacist system.”
Onto the stage enters the SJW's and ANTIFA. With this came the mainstream practice and proselytising of "white shaming" and "male demonstration". From 2012 on to current day, whites have been the target of every learning institution, liberal ideology, and even media platforms. Until in present day it is taught that all males are rapists, and all whites are racist.
The tactics in use suggest that racial reconciliation is not the goal, but rather instead inducing a feeling of learned helplessness. In hopes that if some spend years and years being attacked about something over which they have no control, (being white or male) sooner or later they will surrender and just look about for the easiest way to make it stop so that they can go on living there life. Aka: capitulation.
Not to worry, the people wielding the clubs, and beating you in the streets are here to help! You can atone for your whiteness by being 'liberal'. You must accept that being born white inherently makes you racist, and since you were born with a penis you are definitely a rapist. although, frankly, that might not be enough. You have to be willing to proselytize others into liberalism as well, and have them share in the shame of being born white.
This falls right in line with the NBPP racist ideology that whites are evil, and the feminist veiw of SJW's. Mix that together with the Marxist point of views from both BLM and the NBPP you get the high horse ANTIFA sits upon:
Everything white is racist. Everything male is sexest. Everything capitalistic is evil, and "anyone who disagrees is a Nazi that deserves to get punched in the face!" Hence this:
So, in the last decade or so... racist is not a term that means 'someone that disparages other races'. Racist=white. Bigot=hederosexual. Male=sexist. Nazi=Trump supporter. and so on.
Now we have real nazi show up on seen, why? Nazis, Antifa, NBPP have something in common. They hate jews.
In 1993 NBPP organized an event called the National Black Power Summit and Youth Rally, which had around 200 attendees. White supremacist Tom Metzger spoke at the event as a special guest. Although Metzger is no friend of blacks, both he and NBPP members believe that whites and blacks should live in their own separate countries or areas, and that jews are a menace to society.
While still associated with the Nation of Islam, Khalid Abdul Muhammad (Shabazz's predecessor), gave a notorious speech at Kean College in New Jersey. He accused Jews of being responsible for the slave trade, called Jews "bloodsuckers," and asserted that white South Africans should be killed if they refuse to leave South Africa.
"Our lessons talk about the bloodsuckers of the poor… . It's that old no-good Jew, that old imposter Jew, that old hooked-nose, bagel-eating, lox-eating, Johnny-come-lately, perpetrating-a-fraud, just-crawled-out-of-the-caves-and-hills-of-Europe, so-called **** Jew … and I feel everything I'm saying up here is kosher."
— Khalid Abdul Muhammad
Later it was stated:
"Kill every ******* Zionist in Israel! ******* little babies, ******* old ladies! Blow up Zionist supermarkets!"
—Malik Zulu Shabazz,
NBPP members also hold black-supremacist religious beliefs. Some think that blacks are God's true "chosen people" and that the people normally called "Jews" actually are impostors (this ideology is remarkably similar to the white racist theology of Christian Identity, which says whites are God's real chosen people). These individuals believe that blacks are naturally superior to people of other races. The NBPP is notable for its anti-white and anti-Semitic hatred. Its leaders have even blamed Jews for the 9/11 terrorist attacks (this same belief is held by white nationalists), but Khalid Muhammad had previously said that he could not be anti-Semitic because Jews had no claim to the term "Semite."
This leads to the summation. None of the 3 groups mentioned, Marxist anti-capitalist ANTIFA, Marxist Black separatist NBPP, nor the White separatist support this:
"Don't get confused there in Israel: I am currently your biggest friend. My daughter is married to a Jew who is an enthusiastic Israel supporter, and I have taken part in many Israel Day parades. My friendship with Israel is very strong,"
Donald J Trump.
Throw into the mix a heavily contested election where many people are trying to impeach him; you make a pretty big band wagon.
So why the rise in white nationalists on campuses? First off, it makes the news. It has been so emblazoned in the psyche that it is racist to point out racism in minors, that many racist groups go unnoticed, or unreported.
The presence of whitenatonalist further enforces the notion that not being ashamed for being white makes you like them. Racist. If you dare to be proud of whatever heritage you come from, and are white, things are even worse. It helps to codify the epidemic of white shaming and gives an example to whites of why they are so evil. 'See? Only whites are racist. Only whites have committed evil.'
Then there is the ever present racism practiced against whites in universities and institutions. Some people have gotten tired of pretending it's not racist just because it is a black person doing it. Or any minority for that matter.
What's funny is seeing people complain about people perverting their religion and then turn around and squarely say that another group perverting a religion is not actually perverting a religion. Putting "peaceful" in quotes does not change the fact that most followers of Islam are peaceful, are not terrorists, and are not supportive of violence. Such attitudes makes someone's prejudice quite obvious.But the violence in Islam is not twisted to fit an agenda, in fact its "peaceful" Islam which is the twisted form to suit an agenda. Islam is a violent supremacist ideology, starting with its founder.
What annoys me is how people who complain about "white" society, "white privilege" and "white" people, in general which is largely baseless, can then defend Islam, an actual supremacist ideology, with many of its followers supporting its "superiority" over others and in many nations where they are the majority, laws that favour Islam written right there in the codes of law of their nations. its got to the point where being "white" a genetic thing that nobody can change is treated like its an "ideology" and being Muslim, an ideology/religion that you can leave or cease to be part of is treated like its an "ethnicity". So white people are guilty over something they have no control over, but then its wrong to judge people who follow Islam, a supremacist ideology at its core, that they could leave and abandon if they chose?
Any person who bemoans "white privilege", "White" society etc, but then defends Islam and then claims they fight against inequality and injustice, is frankly the worst kind of fraud, even though they are so brainwashed they can't see it. If they were really against Supremacy, Islam would be top of he list of oppressive systems they'd fight against.
Mega-dittoes.What's funny is seeing people complain about people perverting their religion and then turn around and squarely say that another group perverting a religion is not actually perverting a religion. Putting "peaceful" in quotes does not change the fact that most followers of Islam are peaceful, are not terrorists, and are not supportive of violence. Such attitudes makes someone's prejudice quite obvious.
What's funny is seeing people complain about people perverting their religion and then turn around and squarely say that another group perverting a religion is not actually perverting a religion. Putting "peaceful" in quotes does not change the fact that most followers of Islam are peaceful, are not terrorists, and are not supportive of violence. Such attitudes makes someone's prejudice quite obvious.
Can you support this claim with evidence? I am somewhat skeptical, although I am open to being convinced otherwise.The vast majority of practising Muslims do however support a system where they are top dogs in society and there is inequality for non-Muslims.
Just as the vast majority of us Christians do not give all we have to the poor...although one might expect it, reading our book...Can you support this claim with evidence? I am somewhat skeptical, although I am open to being convinced otherwise.
My best guess is that while the doctrine of Islam - even "moderate" Islam - may well be regressive and downright bad for living things, the vast majority of Muslims do not really buy into that stuff.
The people that make such claims do not have Muslim friends or know any Muslims besides the images the see on TV or read about online. They accept a distorted picture as reality, this is the same reason that some people believe Africa (which they treat as a country) is all undeveloped or that the entire country of Mexico is a "war zone" (as opposed the cartel problems mostly taking place in the northern states). I take it as a statement borne of fear and ignorance of the unknown.Can you support this claim with evidence? I am somewhat skeptical, although I am open to being convinced otherwise.
My best guess is that while the doctrine of Islam - even "moderate" Islam - may well be regressive and downright bad for living things, the vast majority of Muslims do not really buy into that stuff.
It seems odd to me that a billion Muslims are assumed to have nothing but war-verses written on their hearts in fiery letters, while Christians are assumed to more or less ignore their book in favor of whatever their denomination teaches...The people that make such claims do not have Muslim friends or know any Muslims besides the images the see on TV or read about online. They accept a distorted picture as reality, this is the same reason that some people believe Africa (which they treat as a country) is all undeveloped or that the entire country of Mexico is a "war zone" (as opposed the cartel problems mostly taking place in the northern states). I take it as a statement borne of fear and ignorance of the unknown.
Maybe so, but surely you agree that in the USA at the present time, the overwhelming majority of the "hate / racism" is coming from the right? That is not to excuse the problems on the left, but rather to gain perspective.
Maybe so, but surely you agree that in the USA at the present time, the overwhelming majority of the "hate / racism" is coming from the right? That is not to excuse the problems on the left, but rather to gain perspective.
No...not at all...how am I supposed to measure something like that?
So they become supremacists?
Can you support this claim with evidence? I am somewhat skeptical, although I am open to being convinced otherwise.
My best guess is that while the doctrine of Islam - even "moderate" Islam - may well be regressive and downright bad for living things, the vast majority of Muslims do not really buy into that stuff.
The people that make such claims do not have Muslim friends or know any Muslims besides the images the see on TV or read about online. They accept a distorted picture as reality, this is the same reason that some people believe Africa (which they treat as a country) is all undeveloped or that the entire country of Mexico is a "war zone" (as opposed the cartel problems mostly taking place in the northern states). I take it as a statement borne of fear and ignorance of the unknown.
Surely you can understand that this is not very convincing - we need some hard data, not personal impressions. If you could quote a survey that showed, for example, that 50% of Muslims want to see Sharia Law incorporated into the Law of the Land, you would have something.But as for the practising Muslims, the beauty of the modern age is you can get a rough feel of how they think by seeing their comments on social media, forums and such and frankly, the vast majority seem to think Sharia is wonderful and the way the world should be run and hardly any stand for equality, they would impose their laws in a heartbeat everywhere if they could.
Surely you can understand that this is not very convincing - we need some hard data, not personal impressions. If you could quote a survey that showed, for example, that 50% of Muslims want to see Sharia Law incorporated into the Law of the Land, you would have something.
You're supposed to listen and believe groups like the SPLC.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?